Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:57, 30 April 2008

	Parapsychology (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology

Skepticism Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

merge with scientific scepticism

both articles have half same content, this one has a bad namespace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollj (talk • contribs)

Maybe. Some people seem to consider them to be different, though. Bubba73 (talk), 22:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

They certainly are different. Two separate definitions of the word "skeptic" are in widespread general use, and the terms "scientific skeptic" and "debunker" are shorthand for these two definitions. We can use the word "skeptic" to refer to people who only adopt beliefs which are supported by sufficient evidence. Scientists are good examples of these. We can also use the word "skeptic" to mean "skeptic-activist;" those people who make it their business to expose scam artists and dishonest religous promotors, and who teach the public the basics of rational thinking via authoring books and giving lectures. Good examples of the second type of skeptic are the many members of groups like JREF and CSICOP. There is some overlap between the two meanings of "skeptic" of course. Some scientists are debunkers. And most (but not all) debunkers are faithful practitioners of Scientific Skepticism. On the other hand, the vast majority of scientific skepticism practitioners never spend time engaging creationists in public debates, or trying to expose the tricks that scam artists use to take money from the gullible. --Wjbeaty 03:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. You can be a scientific skeptic without being a debunker. A debunker takes an active role. Bubba73 (talk), 03:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, Dont't merge. Bubba73 (talk), 04:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wise decision. All debunkers are skeptics, but not all skeptics are debunkers. Debunkers are activists. -- Fyslee/talk 18:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate External Link?

The author of this link, http://www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments.htm, appears to be trying to debunk or discredit scientific skepticism, not pseudo-skepticism. Should this link be kept? Giantrobotbrawl (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

He's definitely debunking pseudoskepticism. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No. The person writing it is not a reliable source. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll find that under "parity of sources" in WP:FRINGE

Martinphi's apparent double standard

Since MartinPhi insistst that we don't call Sylvia Browne a "purported psychic" because it is redundant, I insist that we do not say debunkers only debunk things they "believe to be false" as that is redundant. By definition, a true debunker is one who debunks false claims. If a debunker debunks true claims they aren't debunking. QED. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. But we have to characterise what they debunk somehow. The way you would have it, it's as if the claims debunked are always "false, exaggerated, unscientific or pretentious" in fact. Whereas a psychic is a cultural artefact, not necessarily one who has powers. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Start-Class Alternative medicine articles